Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Denver Post)   13 things that would have passed the Senate if there were no filibuster. [warning: picture of ugly turtle]   (denverpost.com) divider line 101
    More: Interesting, the warning, Senate, Capitol Hill in Washington, filibusters, turtles  
•       •       •

7205 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Nov 2012 at 6:55 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



101 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-10 08:15:17 PM  
I am surprised I will be the first person to point this out:


getting rid of the filibuster will work against you when the other side is majority and your side is minority
 
2012-11-10 08:21:49 PM  

GAT_00: And the statistical improbabilities of any of those outcomes make the whole argument stupid. Extreme arguments such as those only serve to discredit the person making them.


And, ironically, because you seem to have missed it entirely, that was almost exactly the original poster's point. He's comparing the article's argument to that kind of idiotic argument. And that's why King Something said OPs point was well made.

With all due respect, this is one what just went over your head.
 
2012-11-10 08:22:17 PM  

cman: I am surprised I will be the first person to point this out:


getting rid of the filibuster will work against you when the other side is majority and your side is minority


I think that the Dems are pretty confident this may NEVER happen again as demographics are shifting even more and the Senate usually represents the actual electoral environment as the House is corrupted by gerrymandering (even though D Reps received a majority of actual votes vs members in the House).
 
2012-11-10 08:23:02 PM  

bugontherug: And that's why King Something said OPs point was well made.


Pardon me. Why kronicfeld said that.
 
2012-11-10 08:26:20 PM  

cman: I am surprised I will be the first person to point this out:


getting rid of the filibuster will work against you when the other side is majority and your side is minority


And keeping it works against you when you're in the majority and the other side is in the minority. The government seemed to function relatively well before 1970, when filibuster or the threat of filibuster was used extremely rarely.

www.washingtonpost.com 

This graph is actually showing cloture, which isn't a perfect measure of filibuster, but it's pretty good. Here's the article it came from.
 
2012-11-10 08:26:52 PM  

cman: I am surprised I will be the first person to point this out:


getting rid of the filibuster will work against you when the other side is majority and your side is minority


The minority could just go to Illinois to block a vote.
 
2012-11-10 08:27:26 PM  

ramblinwreck: cman: I am surprised I will be the first person to point this out:


getting rid of the filibuster will work against you when the other side is majority and your side is minority

I think that the Dems are pretty confident this may NEVER happen again as demographics are shifting even more and the Senate usually represents the actual electoral environment as the House is corrupted by gerrymandering (even though D Reps received a majority of actual votes vs members in the House).


As a progressive, Democratic voter, I am certain the Democrats will again be in the minority at some point.

And I still want filibuster reform.

That's because it:

1) is undemocratic,

2) screws up the assessment of responsibility in our political system (59 Democrats want something, and 40 Republicans and 1 Democrat oppose it--so the Democrats get blamed for failing to pass it), and

3) makes the system less responsive to popular will.

Number three is the big one, and it is why conservatives SHOULD oppose filibuster reform, and why progressives should support it. As the system becomes more responsive, it will encourage public participation. Increased public participation will in turn move the country to the left. That's why the Republicans work so hard at discouraging public participation at every turn.
 
2012-11-10 08:29:34 PM  
Apparently the filibuster was created in 2011 and only used by Republicans.
 
2012-11-10 08:30:29 PM  

bugontherug: As a progressive, Democratic voter, I am certain the Democrats will again be in the minority at some point.

And I still want filibuster reform.

That's because it:

1) is undemocratic,

2) screws up the assessment of responsibility in our political system (59 Democrats want something, and 40 Republicans and 1 Democrat oppose it--so the Democrats get blamed for failing to pass it), and

3) makes the system less responsive to popular will.

Number three is the big one, and it is why conservatives SHOULD oppose filibuster reform, and why progressives should support it. As the system becomes more responsive, it will encourage public participation. Increased public participation will in turn move the country to the left. That's why the Republicans work so hard at discouraging public participation at every turn.



I agree with you. It's funny though that you say the Republicans should be the ones opposing filibuster reform, since it was them that most prominently threatened to implement it.
 
2012-11-10 08:30:50 PM  

Snapper Carr: Keep the filibuster but go back to this

[img69.imageshack.us image 700x512]


Phone books, dictionaries, piss buckets...

If it's important enough, you should be willing to suffer for it.


Goddamn right. None of this "we're filibustering... now if you'll excuse us, we've all got planes to catch to our vacation homes" nonsense. If it means that much to you, you should at least be willing to put in some extra hours at work.
 
2012-11-10 08:31:01 PM  
Snapper Carr: Keep the filibuster but go back to this

[img69.imageshack.us image 700x512]


Phone books, dictionaries, piss buckets...

If it's important enough, you should be willing to suffer for it.


THIS
 
2012-11-10 08:32:13 PM  

hovsm: Apparently the filibuster was created in 2011 and only used by Republicans.


Please see the graph I posted above. Yeah, it really doesn't look like they're the ones that have escalated its use to douchetastic levels, does it?
 
2012-11-10 08:38:39 PM  

cman: I am surprised I will be the first person to point this out:


getting rid of the filibuster will work against you when the other side is majority and your side is minority


Yeah, but that never happens
 
2012-11-10 08:39:16 PM  
FTFA: The U.S. Postal Service has faced mounting financial troubles because of increased use of the Internet. This bill would have allowed it to restructure retirement accounts to recoup $11 billion and use some of that money to encourage 100,000 postal workers to retire.

Failed: 51-46, 3 Not Voting, Senate Roll Call No. 60, 112nd Congress, 2nd Session, March 27, 2012


So, tell me again about how the Republicans just want to cut spending and make government more efficient, and if the Democrats would just get on board with that agenda, they wouldn't obstruct so much...
 
2012-11-10 08:45:25 PM  

bugontherug: As a progressive, Democratic voter, I am certain the Democrats will again be in the minority at some point.

And I still want filibuster reform.

That's because it:

1) is undemocratic,

2) screws up the assessment of responsibility in our political system (59 Democrats want something, and 40 Republicans and 1 Democrat oppose it--so the Democrats get blamed for failing to pass it), and

3) makes the system less responsive to popular will.

Number three is the big one, and it is why conservatives SHOULD oppose filibuster reform, and why progressives should support it. As the system becomes more responsive, it will encourage public participation. Increased public participation will in turn move the country to the left. That's why the Republicans work so hard at discouraging public participation at every turn.



I was about to write a similar response. So many people seem incapable of understanding that sometimes a person supports something because it is the right thing to do, rather than because it will benefit them most.
 
2012-11-10 08:53:08 PM  

vwarb: I was about to write a similar response. So many people seem incapable of understanding that sometimes a person supports something because it is the right thing to do, rather than because it will benefit them most.


I do think filibuster reform is the right thing to do, and that's the main reason I support it. But to be clear, I actually do think it will benefit the left in the long run.
 
2012-11-10 08:53:56 PM  
In a move that will likely accomplish absolutely nothing, I just wrote my senator to suggest that they change to rules to bring back the genuine filibuster, where you actually have to stand there and talk. But then again, as my senator is Bernie Sanders, the last senator to actually stand there and talk for hours on end, maybe he'll like the idea.

Seems more productive than biatching about it on Fark, at least.
 
2012-11-10 08:54:08 PM  

Erix: I agree with you. It's funny though that you say the Republicans should be the ones opposing filibuster reform, since it was them that most prominently threatened to implement it.


Well, it's my understanding that Harry Reid says filibuster reform is a done deal. If that's true, the Democrats aren't "threatening" it anymore.
 
2012-11-10 08:57:04 PM  

bugontherug: Erix: I agree with you. It's funny though that you say the Republicans should be the ones opposing filibuster reform, since it was them that most prominently threatened to implement it.

Well, it's my understanding that Harry Reid says filibuster reform is a done deal. If that's true, the Democrats aren't "threatening" it anymore.


No shiat, really? That's awesome! I'm going to read up on that. Of course, now I find out, after writing my senator about it. Oh well.. better late than never.
 
2012-11-10 08:59:51 PM  

Erix: bugontherug: Erix: I agree with you. It's funny though that you say the Republicans should be the ones opposing filibuster reform, since it was them that most prominently threatened to implement it.

Well, it's my understanding that Harry Reid says filibuster reform is a done deal. If that's true, the Democrats aren't "threatening" it anymore.

No shiat, really? That's awesome! I'm going to read up on that. Of course, now I find out, after writing my senator about it. Oh well.. better late than never.



Link
 
2012-11-10 09:02:38 PM  

bugontherug: Erix: bugontherug: Erix: I agree with you. It's funny though that you say the Republicans should be the ones opposing filibuster reform, since it was them that most prominently threatened to implement it.

Well, it's my understanding that Harry Reid says filibuster reform is a done deal. If that's true, the Democrats aren't "threatening" it anymore.

No shiat, really? That's awesome! I'm going to read up on that. Of course, now I find out, after writing my senator about it. Oh well.. better late than never.


Link


Haha.. thanks; I was actually about the ask you where you heard about that, but I could just see the "let me Google that for you" reply, so I searched for it myself. I also found this incredibly disingenuous and misleading reply from Jim DeMint. What an ass.
 
2012-11-10 09:05:42 PM  

Erix: Haha.. thanks; I was actually about the ask you where you heard about that, but I could just see the "let me Google that for you" reply, so I searched for it myself. I also found this incredibly disingenuous and misleading reply from Jim DeMint. What an ass.


Well, it's especially misleading because contrary to DeMint's article, Harry Reid has made clear he doesn't plan to get rid of the filibuster. I wish he would, but that's not going to happen.
 
2012-11-10 09:06:47 PM  

Selena Luna: My pet box turtle objects to people who compare her and her kind to Mitch McConnell.


Off-topic, but when I was younger we had a tiny turtle named Ed. He was a slow learner, but cute as a button. Whenever he slipped off his rock he would sink like a stone, and the others in the aquarium kinda pushed him around. It took time, but he finally learned to hold his own. His delayed development caused me to nickname him "Special Ed." The name stuck. He was adorable. And I, too, resent real turtles being compared to that rotten, waffle-stomping, intransigent cockbag McConnel.

/csb
 
2012-11-10 09:07:48 PM  

bugontherug: Erix: Haha.. thanks; I was actually about the ask you where you heard about that, but I could just see the "let me Google that for you" reply, so I searched for it myself. I also found this incredibly disingenuous and misleading reply from Jim DeMint. What an ass.

Well, it's especially misleading because contrary to DeMint's article, Harry Reid has made clear he doesn't plan to get rid of the filibuster. I wish he would, but that's not going to happen.


It's almost as if the Republicans are in the habit of inventing their own realities whenever it suits them.

Wait, that's the next thread down.
 
2012-11-10 09:10:21 PM  

Erix: But then again, as my senator is Bernie Sanders, the last senator to actually stand there and talk for hours on end, maybe he'll like the idea.


I'm a huge Sanders fan. I'm jealous that you have such ballsy representation. I've watched many of his speeches and the guy is certainly a true believer. I'm a fan.
 
2012-11-10 09:11:47 PM  

bugontherug: Erix: Haha.. thanks; I was actually about the ask you where you heard about that, but I could just see the "let me Google that for you" reply, so I searched for it myself. I also found this incredibly disingenuous and misleading reply from Jim DeMint. What an ass.

Well, it's especially misleading because contrary to DeMint's article, Harry Reid has made clear he doesn't plan to get rid of the filibuster. I wish he would, but that's not going to happen.


Getting rid of it entirely is a bad idea. The minority needs to have some power, after all, to block anything that's seriously bad. But a filibuster should be more difficult, something a Congresscritter actually has to sacrifice for. If stopping a bill is so important, they should be willing to WORK for it.
 
2012-11-10 09:15:48 PM  
randomjsa (farkied: "Holy fnck you're an idiot." - Nina_Hartley's_Ass): Only a liberal could think "The private sector isn't doing so hot these days, let's take more money out of it and use it with all the efficiency and competence of the government" is actually a good idea.

So then the goose-stepping chicken hawk warmongers who want to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran are liberals? I really don't think so.
 
2012-11-10 09:20:17 PM  

dickfreckle: Erix: But then again, as my senator is Bernie Sanders, the last senator to actually stand there and talk for hours on end, maybe he'll like the idea.

I'm a huge Sanders fan. I'm jealous that you have such ballsy representation. I've watched many of his speeches and the guy is certainly a true believer. I'm a fan.


Actually, I just happened to move into his district a few months ago, and had the pleasure of voting for him for the first time last week. Far better than my options in PA..
 
2012-11-10 09:34:10 PM  

LordJiro: Getting rid of it entirely is a bad idea. The minority needs to have some power, after all, to block anything that's seriously bad. But a filibuster should be more difficult, something a Congresscritter actually has to sacrifice for. If stopping a bill is so important, they should be willing to WORK for it.


THIS
simple enough, make the filibuster dynamic again. must be on the floor, while in session. you stop, they can vote. NOTHING else can be done by the senate while the filibuster is ongoing. NOTHING.
Other than hardship, all senators must stay in the room.

I would go a step further and require that whatever they talk about actually be on the TOPIC of the bill.
Make them farking actually repeat over and over WHY they think the bill is bad!!!
get 10 hours of that and the people will start complaining to their congressmen
 
2012-11-10 09:42:26 PM  

JohnnyC: cman: Making abortion illegal will allow the little baby Steve Jobs to live, but also allow the little baby Adolf Hitlers to live, too

Are you trying to say that all aborted babies would have been tyrants?


They actually had a much greater chance of being killers.
 
2012-11-10 09:47:10 PM  

dickfreckle: Selena Luna: My pet box turtle objects to people who compare her and her kind to Mitch McConnell.

Off-topic, but when I was younger we had a tiny turtle named Ed. He was a slow learner, but cute as a button. Whenever he slipped off his rock he would sink like a stone, and the others in the aquarium kinda pushed him around. It took time, but he finally learned to hold his own. His delayed development caused me to nickname him "Special Ed." The name stuck. He was adorable. And I, too, resent real turtles being compared to that rotten, waffle-stomping, intransigent cockbag McConnel.

/csb


That is a cool story. My turtle is named ET. Instead of extra terrestrial, it stands for extra turtle, because we got her for free for being a spare. I think that makes her a democrat...
 
2012-11-10 09:54:23 PM  

cman: I am surprised I will be the first person to point this out:


getting rid of the filibuster will work against you when the other side is majority and your side is minority


Not many people are actually suggesting the complete removal of the filibuster, just the current, "declare a filibuster, end all discussion" rule.

Also to play devil's advocate; the democrats pretty much rolled over on every damn thing during the Bush years, so we probably wouldn't see that much difference anyway. Ell-oh-ell
 
2012-11-10 10:03:00 PM  
Way to keep this country down R-tards
 
2012-11-10 10:10:02 PM  

TheBigJerk: cman: I am surprised I will be the first person to point this out:


getting rid of the filibuster will work against you when the other side is majority and your side is minority

Not many people are actually suggesting the complete removal of the filibuster, just the current, "declare a filibuster, end all discussion" rule.

Also to play devil's advocate; the democrats pretty much rolled over on every damn thing during the Bush years, so we probably wouldn't see that much difference anyway. Ell-oh-ell


Considering how obstructive the GOP has been using the filibuster, one would think that the Democrats would return the favor the next time GOP has majority in the senate.
 
2012-11-10 10:25:52 PM  

cman: TheBigJerk: cman: I am surprised I will be the first person to point this out:


getting rid of the filibuster will work against you when the other side is majority and your side is minority

Not many people are actually suggesting the complete removal of the filibuster, just the current, "declare a filibuster, end all discussion" rule.

Also to play devil's advocate; the democrats pretty much rolled over on every damn thing during the Bush years, so we probably wouldn't see that much difference anyway. Ell-oh-ell

Considering how obstructive the GOP has been using the filibuster, one would think that the Democrats would return the favor the next time GOP has majority in the senate.


You are making assumptions that I would not consider safe assumptions. Why do you think actual liberals spend so much time not even bothering to vote?
 
2012-11-10 10:33:37 PM  
The filibuster has become a bastardized version of its former self. I would rather an old white racist recite his mother's slaves' shortnin' bread recipes for hours on end than having the majority knuckle under and say "you win". That's one of the perks of a majority: The minority has to work to prevent you from passing your stuff. Even if that work is stalling for time to convince just one more Senator to vote your way, or for one Senator to keel over and fall asleep while you're talking.

/Every bill should have a final up or down vote if it makes the Senate floor.
//If you wanna filibuster, put on your Depends and actually filibuster.
 
2012-11-10 10:35:36 PM  

DamnYankees: While, with a GOP House this issue is less practically relevant, the filibuster is and remains a travesty.


No, the filibuster is fine and serves a useful purpose in protecting the rights of the minority. The problem is how it's currently implemented. Senators don't even have to use the filibuster as the rules stand now, they can simply use the threat of a filibuster plus endless procedural votes to bring things to a halt.
 
2012-11-10 10:41:25 PM  

RedPhoenix122: Failed: 50-50

But you see, that was all speculation, and it fits the criteria, because it never had a chance to be voted on.


Um, yeah, about that: "Here are 13 bills or nominations that received more than 50 votes"

So tell me again how a 50-50 vote received more than 50 votes?
 
2012-11-10 10:52:48 PM  
A party that ends the filibuster is a party that believes it will never be out of power again, which is exactly the sort of party that needs to be removed from power ASAP. This is why the filibuster isn't going anywhere: for all the derp and delusion, neither party is far enough gone yet to believe in a permanent majority.
 
2012-11-10 10:56:09 PM  

cman: Ok, thanks for sharing.

/Making abortion illegal will allow the little baby Steve Jobs to live, but also allow the little baby Adolf Hitlers to live, too


I use Linux. Abort both of 'em.

/Ducks
 
2012-11-10 11:07:42 PM  
So if we remove the filibuster, will the Senate finally pass a budget?

No, of course not. Reid has other things to do, like nothing.
 
2012-11-10 11:24:24 PM  
President Obama's 2011 jobs proposal

In an effort to boost the economy in 2011, President Obama proposed a package of measures that would spend money on infrastructure and help state and local governments hire more teachers and police officers, among other things. The package failed, as did several of its components when brought up separately.

Failed: 50-49, 1 Not Voting, Oct. 11, 2011, Senate Roll Call No. 160, 112nd Congress, 1st Session


This one pisses me off the most. In 2010 they gain the House and claim they're going in on a jobs mandate.

And what do they do? They reject a bill that encourages job growth . . .
 
2012-11-10 11:29:24 PM  

heinekenftw: President Obama's 2011 jobs proposal

In an effort to boost the economy in 2011, President Obama proposed a package of measures that would spend money on infrastructure and help state and local governments hire more teachers and police officers, among other things. The package failed, as did several of its components when brought up separately.

Failed: 50-49, 1 Not Voting, Oct. 11, 2011, Senate Roll Call No. 160, 112nd Congress, 1st Session

This one pisses me off the most. In 2010 they gain the House and claim they're going in on a jobs mandate.

And what do they do? They reject a bill that encourages job growth . . .


Socialist jobs aren't real jobs (or something)
 
2012-11-10 11:37:18 PM  

Mentat: DamnYankees: While, with a GOP House this issue is less practically relevant, the filibuster is and remains a travesty.

No, the filibuster is fine and serves a useful purpose in protecting the rights of the minority. The problem is how it's currently implemented. Senators don't even have to use the filibuster as the rules stand now, they can simply use the threat of a filibuster plus endless procedural votes to bring things to a halt.


Actually the mechanics of a "real" filibuster make things more inconvenient for the majority to maintain a quorum. Those that say "bring back the days of reading the phone book" may not realize that when you *do* have that, the minority can just schedule their days in shifts and continually yield their time to the next guy on the schedule. It's pretty easy for them. The majority, however, have to keep their members around, otherwise there's no quorum, and the session's adjourned.

Reid's got the right idea. He's not eliminating it, but removing the "motion to proceed" and maybe reducing the threshold to 55, would remove a LOT of the mechanical obstructions. Plus, the Republicans shouldn't fear it since nothing truly dangerous to their ideology would get past the House.
 
2012-11-11 12:26:57 AM  
Interesting tidbit: if you take all the congressional races, and add up all the votes to democrats and all the votes for republicans, there were over 1 million more votes for democrats but the GOP took 233 seats and the Dems 194 give or take a recount or two.

Our spelling words for the year are filibuster and gerrymander.
 
2012-11-11 12:40:11 AM  
Looks like a pretty mixed bag. I'm sorry we didn't get more teachers hired, but what kind of delusion has people thinking we need more police in the United States?
 
2012-11-11 01:36:28 AM  

StopLurkListen: Actually the mechanics of a "real" filibuster make things more inconvenient for the majority to maintain a quorum. Those that say "bring back the days of reading the phone book" may not realize that when you *do* have that, the minority can just schedule their days in shifts and continually yield their time to the next guy on the schedule. It's pretty easy for them. The majority, however, have to keep their members around, otherwise there's no quorum, and the session's adjourned.

Reid's got the right idea. He's not eliminating it, but removing the "motion to proceed" and maybe reducing the threshold to 55, would remove a LOT of the mechanical obstructions. Plus, the Republicans shouldn't fear it since nothing truly dangerous to their ideology would get past the House.


I'm not advocating that. My preference would be in eliminating anonymous holds and then switching to a tiered system whereby the first week you would need 60 votes to break the filibuster, the second week 55 and every subsequent week 51. You would obviously need to close some other loopholes, but that would give the minority an opportunity to slow things down without being able to completely shut down the legislative branch.
 
2012-11-11 01:39:38 AM  

StopLurkListen: Mentat: DamnYankees: While, with a GOP House this issue is less practically relevant, the filibuster is and remains a travesty.

No, the filibuster is fine and serves a useful purpose in protecting the rights of the minority. The problem is how it's currently implemented. Senators don't even have to use the filibuster as the rules stand now, they can simply use the threat of a filibuster plus endless procedural votes to bring things to a halt.

Actually the mechanics of a "real" filibuster make things more inconvenient for the majority to maintain a quorum. Those that say "bring back the days of reading the phone book" may not realize that when you *do* have that, the minority can just schedule their days in shifts and continually yield their time to the next guy on the schedule. It's pretty easy for them. The majority, however, have to keep their members around, otherwise there's no quorum, and the session's adjourned.

Reid's got the right idea. He's not eliminating it, but removing the "motion to proceed" and maybe reducing the threshold to 55, would remove a LOT of the mechanical obstructions. Plus, the Republicans shouldn't fear it since nothing truly dangerous to their ideology would get past the House.


One of Senator Merkley's ideas for reforming the filibuster was requiring the minority to maintain a minimum number of people on the floor to sustain the filibuster. The minimum number of people required to sustain it would increase the longer the filibuster was sustained. I think the thresholds he suggested were 5 people for the first 24 hours, 10 for the next 24 hours, and 20 after that. I'd be inclined to suggest it eventually hit 40 since you need more than 40 people to make a cloture vote fail, but I'm crazy.
 
2012-11-11 10:35:09 AM  

Bhruic: RedPhoenix122: Failed: 50-50

But you see, that was all speculation, and it fits the criteria, because it never had a chance to be voted on.

Um, yeah, about that: "Here are 13 bills or nominations that received more than 50 votes"

So tell me again how a 50-50 vote received more than 50 votes?


Because Biden would cast the vote to make it 51-50 if the damn Senate operated in a sane manner.
 
2012-11-11 01:09:00 PM  

Serious Black: StopLurkListen: Mentat: DamnYankees: While, with a GOP House this issue is less practically relevant, the filibuster is and remains a travesty.

No, the filibuster is fine and serves a useful purpose in protecting the rights of the minority. The problem is how it's currently implemented. Senators don't even have to use the filibuster as the rules stand now, they can simply use the threat of a filibuster plus endless procedural votes to bring things to a halt.

Actually the mechanics of a "real" filibuster make things more inconvenient for the majority to maintain a quorum. Those that say "bring back the days of reading the phone book" may not realize that when you *do* have that, the minority can just schedule their days in shifts and continually yield their time to the next guy on the schedule. It's pretty easy for them. The majority, however, have to keep their members around, otherwise there's no quorum, and the session's adjourned.

Reid's got the right idea. He's not eliminating it, but removing the "motion to proceed" and maybe reducing the threshold to 55, would remove a LOT of the mechanical obstructions. Plus, the Republicans shouldn't fear it since nothing truly dangerous to their ideology would get past the House.

One of Senator Merkley's ideas for reforming the filibuster was requiring the minority to maintain a minimum number of people on the floor to sustain the filibuster.


That may be what Reid meant by eliminating the "motion to proceed" (required minimum votes to bring a bill before the full Sebate) -- changing it into a "motion to block". Or whatever legalese they'd call it.

The minimum number of people required to sustain it would increase the longer the filibuster was sustained. I think the thresholds he suggested were 5 people for the first 24 hours, 10 for the next 24 hours, and 20 after that. I'd be inclined to suggest it eventually hit 40 since you need more than 40 people to make a cloture vote fail, but I'm crazy.

I wouldn't support that, if I were a grand pooh-bah, it just means you schedule things with this in mind. I'd rather keep simple vote threshold. (anyone left out there in this thread? I'm kinda late :( )
 
Displayed 50 of 101 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report